Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Show program' implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens on failure. The HTTP method 'GET' in the description suggests a safe operation, but this isn't explicitly stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with just two phrases, but this brevity comes at the cost of clarity. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose first, though that purpose is poorly defined. There's no wasted text, but it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'program' is in this context, what data is returned, or how the pagination parameters work. The HTTP endpoint information is technical detail that doesn't help an AI agent understand the tool's purpose or behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, though the description contributes nothing extra.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Show program' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource context, making it vague about what 'program' refers to in this system. The bracketed text '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' hints at permissions but doesn't explain the action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or sibling tools that might be relevant for retrieving program information. The bracketed text suggests admin access but doesn't specify when this tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.